Or your name is Trump.
I feel like it might be a bit better to try to fight on until you have at least some security guarantees, so you know they just don’t attack you right after regrouping than let them disarm you in name of peace and then get fucked right after by their attack.
Leaving yourself at the mercy of your attacker is the sort of lunacy you’d only have to resort to when you have no other choice.
baggins@beehaw.org 4 days ago
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 5 days ago
I don’t see how continuing the fight is going to lead to security guarantees for Ukraine. A peace deal or ceasefire could at least allow individual countries to send peacekeepers independently of NATO. There are ways to deter a future attack outside of full membership. And if a ceasefire ends up being just a chance to regroup, then at least Ukraine gets that chance as well. As we saw during Ukraine’s “counteroffensive,” well-fortified positions are extremely difficult and costly to break through.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 5 days ago
Continuing fighting gives more time to get those security guarantees. A peace is worth nothing without them.
That’s assuming that’s the sort of peace deal or ceasefire Russia would agree to.
Not only would that give a better position for Russia who has better means to regroup with Ukraine’s support faltering, for that too, that’s assuming that’s the sort of peace deal or ceasefire Russia would agree to.
If Russia did say that we should just pause the fighting, I’d imagine Ukraine would go for that. But it’s not likely Russia is going to do that when they have the upper hand.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 4 days ago
I don’t see the logic here
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 days ago
Gives more time for negotiations